High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11126/2015disposed of

Krishan Singh @ Krishan Jashal v. State Of Punjab

2015-07-09Mr. Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11126 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.7.2015 Krishan Singh @ Krishan Jashal .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G. Punjab.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 51 dated 22.6.2014 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur.

Notice of motion was issued and interim protection was granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was declared innocent. Thereafter, he was summoned as an additional accused with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 8.4.2015, petitioner has surrendered before the learned trial court and is attending the court proceedings on each and every date of hearing. Charge has also been framed against the petitioner. He prays for confirming the order dated 8.4.2015 passed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Lakhvir Singh, submits that petitioner has surrendered before the learned trial court in compliance of order dated 8.4.2015. He endorses the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

AMIT KUMAR 2015.07.10 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-11126 of 2015 (O&M) Learned counsel for the complainant prays for dismissal of the present petition on the ground that charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC, which is a serious offence.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that petitioner has surrendered before the learned trial court in compliance of the order dated 8.4.2015 passed by this Court, petitioner has been found entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. It is so said, because petitioner has not misused the concession of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court.

In view of the above, order dated 8.4.2015 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute, however, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 9.7.2015 Ak Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2015.07.10 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document